In a civil action for return of property: “In the specific context of the disposition of property, district courts have found that the government acts appropriately when it disposes of property in a manner consistent with actions or representations made by the defendant’s attorney, having apparent authority to act on behalf of the defendant.” That’s what happened here: plaintiff’s attorney was his agent and received his property. Garcia v. O’Kelley, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37321 (W.D. Ark. March 15, 2017).
But for the threat (or even strong suggestion) during transportation in for questioning that defendant’s children might get taken away if she didn’t cooperate, the interrogation would not be coercive. This one was. United States v. Barraza-Rocha, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184947 (D. N.M. Aug. 17, 2016),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32771 (D.N.M. Mar. 8, 2017).*